Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Real Losers at the MN State Capitol Today

Earlier today I gathered with a number of other marriage equality supporters at the Minnesota State Capitol. Here we sadly listened and watched as a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage for same-sex couples took a decisive step closer to being placed on the 2012 ballot.

I think what bothered me most was that the impassioned, well-reasoned and eloquent testimonies of senators such as Scott Dibble, Patricia Torres Ray, John Marty and Linda Berglin against enshrining discrimination into the State Constitution had absolutely no impact on the Republican legislators – all of whom voted for the amendment. Where is their humanity?

As Sen. John Marty noted after the vote:

In over three hours of debate on the Senate floor, the proponents of this mean-spirited amendment did not make even one argument on how this would help anyone, or any family. The only argument they gave was that “we should let the people vote on marriage.”

Thirty years ago, when Connie and I decided to get married, we made a lifelong commitment to each other in front of our family and friends.

Nobody else voted on our marriage.

Several years ago, two friends of ours, Jen and Jane, decided to make a similar lifelong commitment to each other in front of their family and friends.

Why should anyone else be able to vote on Jane and Jen’s marriage?

How would Jane and Jen’s marriage harm anybody else?

The authors of the amendment offered no answer.

Do the proponents think it will help Jen and Jane’s daughter, if we deny her parents the right to marry? Again, the authors of the amendment offer no answer.

No, they didn't. All they could offer, mantra-like, was the refrain: "Let the people vote."

I don't believe they really mean that. I think what they really mean is Let's make sure a core element of our supporters vote for our candidates in 2012 by placing this issue on the ballot.

There is no good public policy reason to bar same-sex couples from marrying. But the constitutional amendment is not about policy, it is about symbolic politics and voter mobilization. As was demonstrated in 2004 when Karl Rove and the GOP placed bans on same-sex marriage on the ballots across many states, it was a terrific hot button issue to mobilize voters. It worked. The religious conservatives turned out in droves.

Placing a ban on gay marriage on the ballot for 2012 might work for similar purposes . . . .

The operative word, of course, is might. For as Schultz acknowledges: "2012 is not 2004 and such a strategy may backfire as public opinion has changed and it may engage progressives this time. This is a gamble the GOP senators are taking." Let's hope it's one they also lose!

Another thing that disturbed me about today's vote was the great unspoken cause of division between those accepting and supportive of gay people and their rights and those against such acceptance and support. We know that what drives the backers of this amendment is, first and foremost, a very narrow and rigid religious-based view on sexuality – one that considers homosexual relations as "sinful." I believe that those who are for this amendment are determined to not legitimize what they believe is "sinful" and "depraved" behavior. To legitimize such behavior would be nothing short of mocking God, and thus bringing divinely-orchestrated ruin to our nation.

No, seriously. I think many of them actually believe this. Not that you'd ever hear them say it publicly, mind you. They know that that would alienate mainstream America. No, they're definitely cowards, by and large. Mean-spirited cowards entrenched in a theology that fails to acknowledge, let alone reflect, the loving and transforming presence of the sacred discerned, mediated, and embodied in and through the diverse range of human experience. Accordingly, there's no sense of evolution in their understanding of God's presence and action in our lives – all of our lives, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. It's such a narrow, impoverished, and brittle way of talking about what so many of us experience and celebrate as inclusive, abundant, and enriching.

Interestingly, back in 2006, many of these same anti-marriage equality people were pushing a marriage amendment that would ban gay marriage and "all legal equivalents." That language is totally lacking in this new bill. This means that a future legislature could allow civil unions for same-sex couples with all the benefits of civil marriage. Think about it: we'd have marriage by two different names! Oh, sure, legally these same-sex civil unions couldn't be called marriages, but you can be sure that in time and in the daily lives of people they will be referred to and thought of as marriages. It's going to happen, with or without the official sanctioning of the use of the word "marriage." So what really is the purpose of this ugly and expensive push on the part of those who introduced and voted for this amendment?

I guess it's to make a point reflective of their narrow and bigoted religious worldview, though without actually being able to say that because they know full well that the majority of Minnesotans don't share this worldview. And so all they can parrot is "Let the people vote! Let the people vote!" in the hope that the presence on the ballot of this particular issue will bring out a certain type of constituent.

Never mind that they're hurting thousands of Minnesotan families.

Never mind that they're misusing the Constitution.

What terrible things they are doing. And what pathetic, mean-spirited losers they ultimately are.

Anyway, these are my initial thoughts on today's proceedings. Please feel free to share yours in the comments section.

After more than three hours of often-emotional debate, the Senate approved the proposed amendment by a vote of 38 to 27. The House, which has not yet taken up the bill, is expected to pass it, as well.

Although Gov. Mark Dayton opposes the measure, which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, he has no voice in the decision because constitutional amendments do not require a governor's signature to be placed on the ballot and he can't veto it.

State law already defines marriage as the amendment does, but supporters say the amendment is needed to prevent judges, or a future legislature, from overturning the law.

Although DFL majorities have blocked the amendment for years, now that Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature, passage of it seems nearly assured. Opponents dominated the debate, raising objections that ranged across topics that included religion, discrimination and the economic fallout from adopting the amendment.

Dozens of activists on both sides of the debate filled the Senate gallery and opponents of the amendment conceded that they had little hope of preventing its passage.

"I'm not hopeful at this point," said St. Paul resident Paul Fleege, who hung a banner outside the Senate chamber that declared, "To Be Lesbian or Gay is a Gift from God." "After last November, I knew right away it was going to pass."

"Yes, it's going to pass, but we had to show up and show our opposition," said Monica Meyer, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state's largest advocacy group for gays and lesbians."This isn't going to help a single family in Minnesota, but will discriminate against a lot of them."

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said the amendment is needed to prevent "a small group of politicians or judges to define marriage" and cited a recent poll sponsored by the Minnesota Family Council that showed that three fourths of the state's residents want the opportunity to vote on the issue. "When I think about it, why shouldn't they?"

Several recent national polls have found that opposition to same-sex marriage has been shrinking to a point where Americans are split on the issue.

"This new majority is very, very wrong," said Sen. Terri Bonoff, DFL-Minnetonka. "This new majority is out of step with the people of Minnesota and the people of this country. People have moved on."

DFLers argued that there's no indication the state's courts are poised to overturn the current state law.

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, who is openly gay, showed a picture of himself and his partner, Richard and emotionally asked, "What is so different about us? What is so dangerous? We work really, really hard to support each other every day."

If the amendment is on the ballot, Dibble predicted "an ugly, angry divisive campaign" will unfold in Minnesota, with millions of dollars being spent by both sides. "This amendment is going to create a climate of hostility and fear."

1 comment:

Well, I think it's a load of steaming shite, and I hope it backfires like a motherfucker on them.

Do you allow profanity on your comment threads? I guess I'm a little pissed off.

Very good analysis. I've been very intrigued by the Minnesota Independent coverage on how Bradlee Dean and that crowd FREAK OUT when we start using religious left arguements. Like the guy who talked about if being gay is bad why does God make so many gay people? They HATE that.

I've been wondering how to frame the debate from our side; I've been thinking 'straights-only constitutional amendment' because it focuses on the exclusion and the privilege. I also really like 'cynical attempt to rile up their right-wing voting base'.

I established The Wild Reed in 2006 as a sign of solidarity with all who are dedicated to living lives of integrity – though, in particular, with gay people seeking to be true to both the gift of their sexuality and their Catholic faith. The Wild Reed's original by-line read, "Thoughts and reflections from a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective." As you can see, it reads differently now. This is because my journey has, in many ways, taken me beyond, or perhaps better still, deeper into the realities that the words "progressive," "gay," and "Catholic" seek to describe.

Even though reeds can symbolize frailty, they may also represent the strength found in flexibility. Popular wisdom says that the green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm. Tall green reeds are associated with water, fertility, abundance, wealth, and rebirth. The sound of a reed pipe is often considered the voice of a soul pining for God or a lost love.

On September 24, 2012,Michael BaylyofCatholics for Marriage Equality MNwas interviewed by Suzanne Linton of Our World Today about same-sex relationships and why Catholics can vote 'no' on the proposed Minnesota anti-marriage equality amendment.

Readers write . . .

"I believe your blog to be of utmost importance for all people regardless of their orientation. . . . Thank you for your blog and the care and dedication that you give in bringing the TRUTH to everyone."– William

"Michael, if there is ever a moment in your day or in your life when you feel low and despondent and wonder whether what you are doing is anything worthwhile, think of this: thanks to your writing on the internet, a young man miles away is now willing to embrace life completely and use his talents and passions unashamedly to celebrate God and his creation. Any success I face in the future and any lives I touch would have been made possible thanks to you and your honesty and wisdom."– AB

"Since I discovered your blog I have felt so much more encouraged and inspired knowing that I'm not the only gay guy in the Catholic Church trying to balance my Faith and my sexuality. Continue being a beacon of hope and a guide to the future within our Church!"– Phillip

"Your posts about Catholic issues are always informative and well researched, and I especially appreciate your photography and the personal posts about your own experience. I'm very glad I found your blog and that I've had the chance to get to know you."– Crystal

"Thank you for taking the time to create this fantastic blog. It is so inspiring!"– George

"I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholic blogs, but from what I've seen, The Wild Reed ranks among the very best."– Kevin

"Reading your blog leaves me with the consolation of knowing that the words Catholic, gay and progressive are not mutually exclusive.."– Patrick

"I grieve for the Roman institution’s betrayal of God’s invitation to change. I fear that somewhere in the midst of this denial is a great sin that rests on the shoulders of those who lead and those who passively follow. But knowing that there are voices, voices of the prophets out there gives me hope. Please keep up the good work."– Peter

"I ran across your blog the other day looking for something else. I stopped to look at it and then bookmarked it because you have written some excellent articles that I want to read. I find your writing to be insightful and interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more of it. Keep up the good work. We really, really need sane people with a voice these days."– Jane Gael